> [Ethicist] applies the standard arguments against Nazi eugenics
> in a number of texts, but I think we all agree with those arguments,
> and that's why we're in favor of principles like Open Society and
> Self Direction.

Some of us _don't_ agree with the standard arguments: eugenics is
a good thing, when done freely and not under state coercion.

I have one major question for all so-called ethicists: how do you
justify consistently ignoring individual choice and responsibility?
How do you justify making moral decisions about other people's lives
for which _you_ will not personally bear any consequences?

Why must I submit to the norms of an irrational society when no
one is affected by my decision but me? Because they're bigger?
Why do you take religious "arguments" more seriously than rational
scientific and legal ones? Why do religious norms matter _at all_?
Do you even try to understand the scientific consequences of a
technology like cloning before pronouncing it evil?

--
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC